Those tech involve thing like lowering the age of serving to young teen, and the events specifically say that all the eligible (right age) men in the country have been taken away to war. This means significantly more than 5% of the nation is serving
+5 cost per development needs to go.
- Thread starter hashinshin
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
And it's important to note that it's stupid that letting the young serve would increase manpower.
Why? Because you are probably dropping the birth rate even further by killing off more of your young men than ever before. That means in a generation you will have LESS manpower, not MORE.
Hang on, I'm going to go make a thread of it.
Conquering the world is difficult, time-consuming, and requires a massive level of engagement with and knowledge of basically all of the game's mechanics.
Clicking 'develop' every few years is chimp worthy.
Not gonna say that near-limitless development shouldn't be possible, but seriously man, there's no equivalence here.
- 1
World conquest is tedious, time consuming, boring, and requires you to play without AI bonuses so there is no challenge.
- 1
A bigger issue is that a 14 year old boy is just in no way shape or form suitable for combat using medieval tech compared to an adult. Maybe once you get guns, still mental development is an issue.
Presumeably they practice extreme polygamy for the survivors.
Tedious yes, but too many people on this forum hide behind that as if tedium automatically invalidates the challenge to the task. There may not be an existential threat to basically any player-controlled country past ~1600 in a single player campaign, but there's plenty of challenge involved in racing the clock to achieve a world conquest, and that goes triple for one tags. "I could obviously do what this guy did if i could just stomach the tedium."
No. That guy is a top-top-top tier player.
It's like a sprinter declaring that he could easily win a marathon simply because he's clearly awesome at the first 100 meters. By all means, if you don't appreciate the sort of time-trial playstyle that world conquest requires, feel free to eschew it. My preferences happen to agree with you. But WC-as-easy-tedium is a cop out. And most people who say that sort of thing know it.
Regardless, your post is unresponsive to the main point, which is irrefutable: world conquest requires effort; clicking the development button doesn't. Therefore you can't draw a game play equivalence between them.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
Why are woodland provinces hard to develop, anyway? By definition, they are fertile as a result of not having been overfarmed for centuries, they have ample supplies of fuel and building materials, and expanding the population by increasing the amount of farmland is administratively trivial.
- 4
I have defended my claims quite well.
You haven't defended why you say a country should be able to feasibly (and easily, as the mechanics will allow it as no restriction against such has been announced) develop a province like Orkney Islands into a province with the economic and military power of three of the largest cities in the game combined. The development mechanic needs further tweaks to prevent this situation occurring. You say that the mechanics as announced, with no single-province development soft caps, is a desirable outcome, and I don't think you've defended that at all well.
Yes, world conquest isn't immersive. But it's not a problem - because the AI does not do it. And a human player cannot do it without an immense amount of application and focus. Should that application and focus be applied, I continue to contend that it makes more sense for one global empire to extend it's control and influence over the entire world, then the extreme cases that these development mechanics with further reduced costs would enable. Heck, Spain and Britain could have got close if history had turned out a bit differently.
Single province uncapped development into the stratosphere is even more immersion-breaking - especially when that province might have a very small land base, and there might well be other reasons why supporting a very large development could not plausibly make any sense, such as climate, or being a minor state lacking the aggregated population to support such concentrations of economic power. And it's a problem because the AI will do it.
If you're going to disagree with my conclusions about these mechanics, say why you think it should be possible to build Orkney into a province with more economic power than Paris, Istanbul, and London combined. I say we can make further tweaks to prevent these extreme cases, while keeping the mechanic useful, fun, and balanced. Because you're playing an alternative history simulation game. You're not playing fricking Final Fantasy. We'll see what occurs, I guess.
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
I like the new idea of develeopment, but they had to arrange it into a system, (monarch points) that is already a bit unlogic, so the resulting development is much more unrealistic/unbalanced.
Raising tax would simply mean raising the population, additionally maybe raising administrative efficiency by lowering corruption etc. (not that big impact). But more population would additionally mean more manpower, so the military development is obsolete in that point. I could imagine you need military development to build cavalry and artillery and also higher tier military units (technology development). But simply increasing manpower make not really sense if you dont have the population in that area.
The diplomatic development make sense, high production output isnt necessarily coupled with high population, it also need infrastructure, technology, factories, efficiency. But in diplomatic development i see the next issue. Former culture conversion was only dependend on tax value (make sense: high tax = high population = high cost for changing minds). But now culture conversion is also increased by diplomatic development, even culture conversion have no impact to production. I have to pay for it. Additionally unlike core creation or development cost, there is no reduction for this by technology.
If you want to stay with the 3 MP types system i would suggest the following development:
Administrative MP for increasing population = static tax and manpower value + percentage improve to production
Diplomatic MP for increasing efficiency = static production improvement + percentage tax
Military MP increase military infrastructure = infantry/cavalry/artillery of each technologiy need a minimum of miilitary development + percentage manpower
This system is easy to understand but also a bit complex. Core creation could be depent mainly on population, improved by a percentage dependend by efficiency.
It would also increase the complexity of the game, especially military production, cause you need high developed provinces to produce high tier army units, and dont be able to produce artillery in 1/1/1 6 month ago colonized provinces. (also very unrealistic)
Raising tax would simply mean raising the population, additionally maybe raising administrative efficiency by lowering corruption etc. (not that big impact). But more population would additionally mean more manpower, so the military development is obsolete in that point. I could imagine you need military development to build cavalry and artillery and also higher tier military units (technology development). But simply increasing manpower make not really sense if you dont have the population in that area.
The diplomatic development make sense, high production output isnt necessarily coupled with high population, it also need infrastructure, technology, factories, efficiency. But in diplomatic development i see the next issue. Former culture conversion was only dependend on tax value (make sense: high tax = high population = high cost for changing minds). But now culture conversion is also increased by diplomatic development, even culture conversion have no impact to production. I have to pay for it. Additionally unlike core creation or development cost, there is no reduction for this by technology.
If you want to stay with the 3 MP types system i would suggest the following development:
Administrative MP for increasing population = static tax and manpower value + percentage improve to production
Diplomatic MP for increasing efficiency = static production improvement + percentage tax
Military MP increase military infrastructure = infantry/cavalry/artillery of each technologiy need a minimum of miilitary development + percentage manpower
This system is easy to understand but also a bit complex. Core creation could be depent mainly on population, improved by a percentage dependend by efficiency.
It would also increase the complexity of the game, especially military production, cause you need high developed provinces to produce high tier army units, and dont be able to produce artillery in 1/1/1 6 month ago colonized provinces. (also very unrealistic)
The development should be happening automatically - gold should be spent (perhaps with some amount of monarch points) on required infrastructure - that is the buildings which are existing in the game. The suggested development level should be at least affected by the population growth, the amount of buildings built, production and taxes in the province, as well as climate, trade and terrain. The speed of development should depend at least on technology, amount of manpower in the pool (or better yet, drafted from the province), looting, buildings built, trade and perhaps random events like diseases. Some buildings may increase the development or the development speed; also the development speed may be increased by pouring gold into the province (though there will be diminishing returns for having the development above the suggested level - the maintenance of buildings could increase and the development speed may revert to negative once the gold stream pouring into the province is stopped)
The current system is not good. To the point that playing vanilla EU may be more fun.
The current system is not good. To the point that playing vanilla EU may be more fun.
Based on EUIV desidn philosophy, I'm pretty sure Paradox wouldn't want to have gold affect development, for the same reason they tied techs and ideas to mana.
It's a bad design choice, in my humble opinion, as it doesn't involve any strategy and amounts to hoping RNG numbers would go your way, but it levels the playing field with just a little variety in each and every game, depending on whom RNG favours in that particular game.
Allowing gold to be spent on development might seriously affect that.
It's a bad design choice, in my humble opinion, as it doesn't involve any strategy and amounts to hoping RNG numbers would go your way, but it levels the playing field with just a little variety in each and every game, depending on whom RNG favours in that particular game.
Allowing gold to be spent on development might seriously affect that.
Given that in the future none of your development levels can be higher than the other 2 together you can probably think of the overall level as population and the individual variance as a kind of specialty of the area.
My system would be more complex and much more realistic then the actual one. And its no explanation why culture conversion cost also rise when you improve production of a province, even conversion of that province will not improve the production. And its no explanation why there is a technological reduction from coring and developing cost but none to cultural conversion.
Uh... isn´t the problem here more the AI not using development as well as a player?
I´d rather see the AI use it smartly than putting restrictions on total development and relative development. I can understand a 1 1 46 province being silly, but specialization did occur.
I´d say a 3/1/1 or 4/1/1 ratio would be more appropriate than maximum number being sum of the least used development parts.
Programmers make the cornuta when you say that
But imaginary restriction from out of nowhere to balance a definitly unlogic system is much better?
Instead integrating a understandable and realistic system in first place?
I really like the idea of building a medium sized increadible developed country and let others conquer what they want. But till yet i prefer spamming 9 colonies at same time, pay 3 lvl 3 advisor and build plantation wherever whenever i can cause its much much more useful then improving a province for the cost of a half technology to gain 0.12 more money each month.....
Till yet i only use development of provinces to reduce my MP if they hit the maximum or to unlock another building slot.
I don't know what else to say. I already said exactly what you're asking for in my previous post:
Players can do silly things. As long as the AI doesn't and it's suboptimal to do so then I don't really care very much.
If making Orkney into a super-province was an efficient and optimal thing to do then I'd be complaining about it and offering alternatives. Since it is instead a weird thing the game doesn't especially reward you for (considering the costs, including after the proposed changes) then what do I care?
I don't think it's too relevant that development is simpler than world conquest, though. I'm comparing the sensibility of the two, not the gameplay. What we have so far with province development is extremely simple; I hope it's the beginning of a feature that continues to deepen throughout future updates and EU iterations. I've actually offered a lot of tweaks as suggestions to move things in that direction.
Super-developing Orkney is as inane as WC with Ryukyu. Super-developing, say, London is less inane, comparable to perhaps conquering the world with Britain or the Ottomans.
Ultimately I don't think "it's inane" is the best complaint to file about it, particularly given how everything else in the game works (100k troops shipped to American colonies, anyone?). "It will be bad for gameplay if the AI super-develops" is more compelling and more likely to get noticed since Wiz has openly stated, recently, that he's uninterested in considering arguments from realism when pondering gameplay mechanics.
I know you probably don't speak English as a first language but this is really starting to grate at me. This should be illogical. Not in any way attacking you, it is just starting to hurt my eyes to keep reading unlogical. You should also probably capitalize your I's when using by themselves to refer to yourself (so in the word I).
I´m sorry if I made you feel you uncomfortable but thanks for the hint.
In german you principle place an "un" in front of a word to negate it, instead the "in".
I also think, the community really lack in information, in which direction the development system will go. Only saying, "we will make a restriction" is a bit thought briefly.